DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Columbus casino does not allow its employees to smoke...ever

link

Copyright 2012 The Columbus Dispatch
All Rights Reserved


The Columbus Dispatch (Ohio)
November 25, 2012 Sunday

Up in smoke;
More companies are demanding that potential employees quit smoking to keep insurance costs down

Steve Wartenberg, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Until the day he was offered the job as executive sous chef of the new Hollywood Casino Columbus, Tim Dionisio smoked a pack of cigarettes a day.

And when things got hot and hectic in the kitchen, and there wasn't time to go outside for a cigarette break, "I popped little bags of spitless chew in my mouth."

Dionisio is now four months into a cold-turkey goodbye to tobacco products. Instead, he chain-sucks Werther's Original candies.

"I go through a bag every two days," he said.

Quitting wasn't by choice, but from necessity, if he wanted to work at Hollywood Casino Columbus, which opened on Oct. 8. It does not hire smokers or allow employees to smoke on the premises or even in their homes.

"Once I realized the offer was serious, I stopped smoking that day," Dionisio said. "And I couldn't use a patch or gum because they have nicotine in them and would have shown up on the (drug) test."

Job-seekers must pass a drug test that includes nicotine screening, and, once hired, employees caught smoking can be fired.

"This (casino) is a brand-new project, and we wanted to set the tone from the start, that wellness is important," said Ameet Patel, general manager of Hollywood Casino, which is owned by Penn National Gaming.

Although it is not yet a trend, a growing number of companies -- especially hospitals -- refuse to hire smokers. Ohio-based companies with this policy include Scotts Miracle-Gro and the Cleveland Clinic.

The goal is to improve the health of employees and reduce the company's health-care costs.

However, this policy has raised legal and ethical issues and has some asking: Where will it stop?

"The slope is slippery," said Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, a nonprofit spinoff of the American Civil Liberties Union that opposes the hiring bans.

"Smoking isn't the only thing that affects your health; there's drinking, eating red meat, exercise or not exercising -- even your sex life affects your health," Maltby said. "And once you say it's all right for employers to tell someone what they can and can't do in their private life, you don't have a private life anymore."

No dice on smoking

Ohio is the first state that forbids smoking in casinos, Patel said. This will create a cultural change, Patel said. Casinos and smoking have traditionally gone together like black and jack.

Ohio's no-smoking law got the ball rolling on the idea -- and eventual policy -- not to hire smokers for Penn National's Hollywood casinos in Columbus and Toledo.

As part of an overall wellness push, the employee cafeteria does not serve fried foods but instead will offer a wide assortment of healthful choices. There is an on-site gym for employees and several programs to encourage employees to exercise and participate in company-sponsored sporting activities.

"There's no doubt in my mind that, down the road, this will be the law of the land and smoking will be a thing of the past," Patel said.

The law of the land on the rights of smokers in the workplace is up to each state.

"There was a campaign by the tobacco industry, helped by the ACLU, in the late 1980s and early 1990s to pass laws to prevent companies from doing this," said Micah Berman, director of New England Law, Boston's Center for Public Health and Tobacco Policy. Twenty-nine states passed smoker-protection laws. Ohio did not.

"Ohio is an at-will employment state, which means companies can hire or fire someone for any reason unless there's a state law that specifically says you can't ... such as discrimination, race, gender laws," Berman said.

Smoking is not protected, he said.

Berman is in the midst of a study of how much smokers cost their employers, and his initial estimate is about $6,000 a year.

"That's for the excess health-care costs and costs related to lost time from smoking breaks and 'presenteeism,' " he said. Presenteeism occurs "when people can't focus due to nicotine addiction" and are less productive.

Other companies or institutions that refuse to employ smokers include Alaska Airlines, Union Pacific Railroad, Detroit Medical Center and Baylor (Texas) Health Care System.

"It's a trend, but certainly not something that has exploded, and it's still a small minority of companies," Berman said.
More common are financial incentives or penalties to curb employee smoking. The number of companies that have such policies jumped by 50 percent between 2009 and 2011, according to a survey conducted by Towers Watson.

"Over half the companies I work with have some sort of program in place ... some sort of credit or penalty," said Ron Mooney, an employee-benefit consultant and broker with Dublin-based RHK Group.

Locally, employees at Nationwide Children's Hospital who smoke are charged an additional $130 a year for health benefits.

"It's all self-reported, so sometimes I question the count ... but about 20 percent of our employees are smokers," said Cindi Solomon, the hospital's employee-wellness operations manager.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. employees who smoke also pay a premium, said company spokesman Jeff Lyttle. "And we work like heck as a company to help smokers kick the habit."

At Cardinal Health, employees get a $600 annual tobacco credit if "the employee and all dependants covered under the Cardinal Health group medical plan will not use tobacco products over the course of a full year," said company spokeswoman Debbie Mitchell.

The Horseshoe Casino Cleveland does hire smokers, but it offers a $100 health-care reimbursement to employees who quit.

At Scotts Miracle-Gro, the number of employees who smoke has dropped from 30 percent to 10 percent since the ban was enacted. The percentage hasn't dropped to zero because Scotts has operations in several states that have smoker-protection laws, said spokesman Lance Latham.

The company was sued over the policy in 2006 by Scott Rodrigues, who was fired for smoking. His case was dismissed three years later by a federal judge.

That is the only lawsuit brought against the company, Latham said.

The Hollywood system

As part of the hiring process at the Hollywood casinos, applicants were told early and often about the no-smoking policy.

"We didn't want to waste anyone's time ... and we lost about 10 percent of the applicant pool," said Chrystal Herndon, the Toledo casino's vice president of human resources.

About 5 percent of those who were offered a job in Toledo failed the drug test.

"But the kicker is, my testing company doesn't separate out drugs and nicotine for me, so I don't know which one they failed," Herndon said.

Several people, she added, said they failed because of the nicotine in the patches they were wearing to help them quit, and those applicants were allowed to retake the test.

"My people at the testing company say you need to go three full days without smoking to not have any nicotine in your system," Herndon said.

Patel said the failure rate for those offered jobs in Columbus has been "less than 1 percent."

No Toledo casino employee has been fired for smoking. The casino began operations on May 29.

"I was prepared to fight a lot of battles, but so far, our employees have embraced it," Herndon said. "In Ohio, you can do random drug tests, but we haven't done that and will only test if there is cause."

Examples of cause would be if an employee is spotted smoking or "if someone smelled cigarettes on you," she said.
Patel said the policy will be the same in Columbus.

"We use the honor system and are comfortable with this," he said. "When you are surrounded by nonsmokers, that's tremendous positive peer pressure not to smoke."

The Toledo and Columbus casinos offer smoking-cessation counseling for employees.

"If someone came to us and said they were having trouble not smoking, we would offer them help," Patel said.

Hollywood's policy is a "powerful incentive" to help smokers quit, said Shelly Kiser, director of advocacy for the American Lung Association in Ohio.

"But we don't go out and say every company shouldn't hire smokers; we promote the need for companies to give smokers the tools they need to stop," she said.

Dionisio has mixed feelings about his employer's policy. "I can't say I think it's OK," he said. "If smoking affects someone's job performance, OK. But if it doesn't, I don't see why they can't be hired."

Then again, he has already begun to feel -- and smell -- the advantages of being smoke-free.

"I can take a deep breath for the first time in a long time, and I have more energy," Dionisio said. His senses of taste and smell also improved; that has made him an even better chef, he said.

He has been tempted to light up. But the temptation quickly fades as he thinks about his wife, Brooke, and their three young children.

"My whole family is depending on me, so there's no chance of me failing," Dionisio said, as he sucked on a Werther's.

The NFL can tell players that they can't play basketball, or ride snowmobiles, or take part in other hazardous activities that are spelled out in their player's contract.

I do know, from personal experience, that smokers request more breaks that non-smokers receive, so they can go catch a smoke .....

That's not fair to those who don't smoke.

On our insurance form, one of the standard questions was "Do you currently, or have you within the past 5 years used tobacco?" It affected costs to those of us paying an employee's share of the insurance, and the employer.

Personally I would hate to lose out on a great talent just because they smoked .... however I understand why employers might have to pass. I don't have a real problem with it.

Lincoln Electric has been doing this for a decade or longer.
My company simply is able to offer its insurance at a lower rate for non-tobacco users.


My beefs with it:
1. What about alcohol? What about illicit drugs? I do neither of those, shouldn't I get even more of a discount? No? Oh, yeah.. because smoking is the Popular Devil, and drinking hasn't been demonized, yet.

2. I HATE that a company can force itself and its policies into a person's private life. I understand why, and I accept that, but I still hate it.

If they dont like the rules, they can go work elsewhere, right?

If your.company uses the Workers Comp. Insurance that the Workers Comp bureau offers, which most do because it is cheapest, there is a drug testing requirement for workplace accidents.

King

Not a smoker so it wouldn't affect me, but I don't like the idea of a company dictating what you can and can't do when they aren't paying you like when you're on an unpaid break or after your shift is over.

It's always amazing to me how in a country based on freedom, how often people are ok with personal freedoms to be taken away. I understand the premise behind this and it is a good thing for the health of those people, but they should have the right to smoke when not on company premises or time if they so choose.

I've actually been looking for that quote for awhile now.

Quote:

---

However, this policy has raised legal and ethical issues and has some asking: Where will it stop?

---

Some shouldn't be asking, ALL should be asking.... Well, without getting too terribly extreme...

Obesity will be next, high blood pressure, those on depression medication, those who participate in dangerous activities like skydiving..... alcohol poses a problem because a lot of these places make a lot of their money from alcohol, so its hard to ban your employees from drinking it...

It's funny, we are getting to a point where your insurance company can't turn you down for a pre-existing condition, but soon employers can.

What do you mean you got caught speeding?

58 in a 55?

I'm sorry, your reckless behavior is too risky for my company, hiring you alone would cause our insurance rates to skyrocket!

j/c

How long will it be before people with high cholesterol - or high blood pressure - or diabetes, etc, are told "we don't hire people with that. Sorry."

All in the name of cheaper health care, right?

Next might be women of child bearing age.

Better yet - those over age 50 are "disqualified", because older people generally use/need more health care. While it's currently illegal to do that (age discrimination).........it gets to be a slippery slope, no?

Or how about the guy that uses a ladder at home? "Sorry, sir, we see here that you have used a ladder at home in the past 4 years. That puts you at a higher risk of falling. We won't employ you."

"Your dad died of a heart attack at age 50, so did your grandpa, as well as your older brother. You are at higher risk of a heart attack. Sorry, we won't hire you."

Look, smoking is bad for you, no doubt. Smoking is a choice as well, no doubt. Eating too much is a choice as well. Not exercising is a choice also.

As we chisel out those we don't want to employ - where will it end?

"your blood pressure is too high, we can't afford to insure you."

"your family history of 'x' disease makes you much more likely than average to get that yourself, and consequently, we won't employ you."

" we have reason to believe that your drinking from age 20 to 30 was excessive so we won't employ you."

"you are obese, and that leads to health problems, so we won't employ you."

"as a rule, single parents miss more work time than dual parent house holds, so we won't employ you."

"We've studied it, and people with kids miss more work time than those without kids, so we won't hire you."

"Im sorry ma'am. Our records show you live over 20 miles from our work place. Research shows that the farther you drive, the more apt you are to be involved in an accident. An accident will affect our insurance. You are unemployable."




Sound crazy? Yup. Today.

I wonder if a Colorado casino does it if they will test for THC too?

our country has demonized nicotine smoking while borderline encouraging THC smoking.

Why would Coloado test for it if it's becoming legal?

So what about the businesses that have adopted these rules, and are trying to make people that were ALREADY employed there change their lifestyles?

Say you've been working for a company for 10 years, and you like to have a smoke after a meal. They come to you and say that due to the new insurance regulations. If you don't stop smoking in a month you'll be let go...

Is it then up to you to just give up what was perfectly ok the day before?

That's why I said "If they know up front", the case for a current employee be told this is different and I don't agree with it. But if the company wants a smoke free environment and has current smoking employees they should offer some assistance to quit.

If the company wants to fire people that smoke because they suddenly changed, that's their choice, but they should be prepared to face a judge as I'm sure some fo those employees will take it to court for wrongful termination, since it wasn't a stipulation when they were hired.

Agreed

This is not too big of an issue when only a few companies are doing it, but what happens if more companies start doing this. Just because you can decide to not work there doesn't make it right.

I have no problem with employers doing this.

I would prefer it if this nonsense about health insurance had never been the business of an employer or of the government.

I think companies should be free to discriminate as much as they like. If it offends the customer it will not be a profitable business decision.

Just wait till the won't hire people who have had sex with more than one person in the last ten years and watch how quick people start screaming that it's not fair and it's none of the employers business what they do on their own time. Also any company STUPID enough to pass on a more qualified employee for almost any reason deserves to go out of business.

Quote:

---

This is not too big of an issue when only a few companies are doing it, but what happens if more companies start doing this.

---

This will never become a big issue as long as its private companies that are doing it... now when governments start doing it, then it will become a big deal. State, local, federal governments... when they start implementing a no smoking, at all, ever policy... there will be a crap storm over it....

and you watch, it will be turned into another class issue because poor/less educated people are far more likely to smoke than are wealthier/educated people... it will be touted as another way to keep the poor from getting good jobs...

The solution, while hard to implement, would be pretty simple:

If you smoke, you can but your rates skyrocket. If you don't, they don't.

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that a company should be able to ask anyone to not do just about anything as a condition of employment, as long as it's not breaking a civil right or a law.

Gotta wear a dress to your welding job? So be it. Have to shave your beard? Fine. Don't wanna do it? You don't have to work for them.

So, you wanna smoke and work here? Sure thing buddy, but you're insurance costs are gonna be $1500 a month, and we're gonna test you for nicotine regularly.

I don't smoke, and I don't want to have my insurance rates go up because other people do.

Yeah, it's a slippery slope. If someone wants to do things in their private life that only affects them, more power to'em, but if those things affect my life, that's where the slope stops being slippery.

Quote:

---

As we chisel out those we don't want to employ - where will it end?

---

When a company can't find people to work for them. Until then, if a company wants me to wear a pink tutu and not smoke as a condition of employment, and I want that job, consider it done.

Family history of heart disease, or cancer, couch potatoes, people with a few speeding tickets, etc, etc, etc, this is just the beginning it's only going to get worse unless people stand up and put a stop to it.

Have you found the company who will let you wear your tutu yet? lol

Well, Sesame Street is looking for a new Elmo and a tutu is almost required.

You company is doing BMI measurements, but doesn't do drug tests?

Don't see a problem with this . Like many have said if you want to smoke it,s your choice .Same with all the lardasses out there . You want to kill yourself that is your choice but don't whine when someone decides that they are done paying for you to do it .